Hi,
Let's look at below two questions:
Did you score 750 on GMAT?
Did you score 750 on GMAT in Mexico?
Would both questions help you in finding out whether the person has scored 750 on GMAT or not?
The answer is No. While the answer to the first question will obviously help you in determining whether the person has scored 750 on GMAT or not, the answer to the second question may not. If the answer to the second question is no, we have no clue whether the person did not score 750 on GMAT or he scored 750 but not in Mexico.
So, we can't really ignore part of questions to understand their meaning.
Now, let's look at option C:(C) Whether artisans from western Mexico could have learned complex metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts without actually leaving western Mexico.
This is similar as saying "whether you can score more than 750 on GMAT without taking an classes". This is different from saying "whether you can score more than 750 on GMAT". The latter question is more about your capability to score 750 while the former question is more about your dependence on classes to score more than 750.
Similarly, option C is concerned about whether artisans could have learnt those techniques without leaving western Mexico. Now, we understand that learning inside or outside Mexico is irrelevant for us. Therefore, option C is irrelevant and incorrect.
score780 wrote:
Since when exchange of products means exchange of skills to make the products, especially that we are talking about "complex techniques". Conversations between the two people is an assumption.
Now, the highlighted part is wrong here. Conversation between the two groups is not an assumption here. The passage very clearly states that "the people of these two areas were in cultural contact".
Now,
coming to option A as to why it is correctThe conclusion is "the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts."
This is based on the premise that "Metal rings recently excavated form seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period."
Now, what if Mexican artists didn't even create these metal rings. What if these metal rings were actually created by Ecuadorian artisans and then brought through trade in Mexico? In that case, can we say that Mexican artists learnt techniques from Ecuadorian counterparts? No. In that case, we would be even doubtful whether Mexican artists knew about the techniques or not.
- metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts
Lets say YES, metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century - This can strengthen the conclusion because this establishes the reason that there was actually trade (or cultural contact) between the people of these two places in the seventh century, hence people in western Mexico might have learnt the metallurgical techniques from their Ecuadorian counterparts. This option can also weaken the conclusion as explained in your post.
Now, lets say NO metal objects were not traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century - This again neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion because objects could have been traded from Western Mexico to Ecuador. This doesn't say anything to establish or negate the presence of trade (or cultural contact) between them.
I cannot reason why Option A is the correct answer.